Post Office Parking Lot Going to Haub
Voelpel’s column today seems to be getting all our downtown urban evangelists excited and flustered. Could it be? Did Haub get the Post Office parking lot? Are we getting more commercial buildings? It would appear that we’re on our way to something. According to Voelpel:
Mr. Haub’s people in town tell me that, under the right market circumstances, Tacoma could see either an office skyscraper larger than anything that exists here today or an urban shopping mall that could lure big-name retailers.
Somebody asked me this afternoon, “could you see an urban shopping mall in that location?” Sure. Access from the freeway for customers and replenishment trucks. Visibility from both the freeway and Pacific. Decent arterial flow. Significant commercial office density. Some residential within a block, but not too much. Yes, I could see it… And it would change downtown Tacoma.
We’ll see… Any thoughts?
Link to The News Tribune
Previously on Exit133
Filed under: Parking
43 comments
G GLC December 19, 2007
That would be AWESOME! Downtown needs a retail anchor to get people there during the day, then they can stick around for food and drinks after dark. Beautiful.
T Tacoma Aroma December 19, 2007
Nope.
Oh wait. Yes. Why is it that every piece of news is slated to “change Tacoma”? If a butterfly flaps it’s wings in Beijing will it change Tacoma? C’mon. This would be an exciting development but we’ve heard plenty of pipe dreams like Whole Foods, condos, etc. that have yet to come anywhere to really revolutionize the way Tacoma exists. Theses are all just pieces to a larger puzzle and, fortunately, Tacoma’s already far enough along that we can be proud and don’t need to look forward to every carrot dangled in front of our faces.
A Andrew December 19, 2007
I think downtown retail is the biggest lacking part of DT right now. This would be a great thing. It got me excited. Office, retail, and a movie theather…sign me up. Also Derek, it has excellent transit access!
R rich December 19, 2007
Hmm, just the thought………..as everyone knows, I’ve always dreamed of a nice combo commercial/retail high rise in that spot……….now that would be some change……..
M morgan December 19, 2007
The phrase “urban mall” is an oxymoron.
How about retail with a Class A office skyscraper above?
C CA December 19, 2007
This definitely sounds like good news, but as with ALL Tacoma developments, Im not holding my breath. If it does happen, It’s got to include big-box retail and a multi-screen movie theater.
Hooray for rich Germans!!
R rich December 20, 2007
I think I need to touch up on my German…it’s been at least 2 years since I’ve been there….
S Squid December 20, 2007
Of anybody with a soft-spot for Tacoma and the funding to take such a risk, it would be Erivan Haub. I spent 90 minutes with him once, he seems like a genuinely great guy who is just looking for an excuse to invest more here. Still, he’s a businessman first, will not treat Tacoma as a charity case.
J jdub December 20, 2007
Morgan, you’ve been to Pioneer Place in Portland? It was the first “urban mall” that really worked in downtown Portland (after several failed tries – Galleria, etc). And they fit it in nice and snug with the square.
D drizell December 20, 2007
I think the key language here is “right market conditions.” Squid’s comment (#8) about Tacoma not being a treated as a charity case is right on. Herr Haub will undoubtedly make sure any project of his will make good financial sense before he even thinks of breaking ground. Not too long ago, Herr Haub pitched an idea for a small office building on the site of the parking lot at 14th and A. Mr. Haub doesn’t want to be a speculative developer, but despite the perceived high demand for office space in downtown Tacoma, they couldn’t find enough tenants to fill that 16-story building.
Also discouraging is the recent Coliers Intl. third quarter real estate report, http://tacomadowntown.blogspot.com/2007/11/demand-remains-high-for-tacoma-office.html, which shows that the highest Class A office rents are not in downtown Tacoma, as they should be, but rather in Puyallup and Sumner. Are potential tenants going to be willing to pay upwards of $40 per square foot for office space downtown?
Here’s a list of advantages and challenges of why an office building may work in this location.
Advantages:
1) Visible location
2) Low Class A vacancy rate
3) Perceived demand for new office space
Challenges:
1) Parking. The City Council has still not taken any decisive action on creating a parking system and appears to be shying away from removing regulations due to small business owners’ concerns. That means that any new building will need an enormous, multistory garage to meet the city’s minimum parking requirements, notwithstanding the fact that hundreds of public transportation vehicles pass that block every day.
2. Rental rates. Just as with anything else, office rental rates are going to be the highest where there is the highest demand for space. According to the Colliers report, downtown has approximately 1.1 million sf of Class A space, yet only the vacancy rate is only 1.15%, and the rates are up to $24.50/sf.
3. It’s still Tacoma. Despite the fact that we have a couple new museums, many regional businesses still think of Tacoma of the 90s. These companies would probably take a more developed business environment up north over Tacoma even if it meant paying more for rent.
R rich December 20, 2007
too bad for the dt merchants if they are indeed one of the reasons the council is stepping back from the parking requirement…..too bad….talk about a snow ball effect…….and the funny thing, is loss of revenue too them…all because the perception that removing the parking requirement would cause adverse financial problems….let me see by removing it, it would seem logical that there could be additional developement in dt which brings more people dt to buy…..of course, they are a pretty cocky group thinking that they have everything someone would want to buy…….get over it already…….I think I’m going to start grouping the Merchants of dt into the same group as the council….lack of vision…..maybe, move my shopping to only 6th and Proctor…….can somewhere show where the DT merchants have been the key reason the council is now backing away???? I would love to have solid proof when I start my boycott…..
R rich December 20, 2007
funny, how any sort of possible good news gets water thrown on it due to issues like the parking requirement issue………and the coucil…….
R rich December 20, 2007
ok…council….not coucil….
L lotac December 20, 2007
As I drive around my hometown and state this holiday season, I am constantly reminded of discussions on Exit 133. I see strip malls, car-centric cities and a lack of places “worth caring about.” In all of this, I also miss Tacoma. I miss the excitement of a new church coming into my neighborhood near Tacoma Ave. and I miss the chance to check out a multitude of neighborhoods, each with their own character.
This news makes me no more or less excited than I was when I heard all the other speculations that have been posted. But what does make me excited, even in my distance from Tacoma, is the interest and conversation that citizens have. I can see now the difference urban planning can make and thank each of you for sharing your thoughts. It may be that we are eager and easily excited, but so what? We love Tacoma, and that is one of the first things a city must have to be successful.
G grubedoo December 20, 2007
Whatever happens there I hope Hotel Concepts Inc. is in charge of designing the building.
D David K December 20, 2007
I don’t know where this parking lot is that you’re talking about. I live here, but work in Seattle so I know next to nothing. Can you give me the address or cross-streets? I want to Google it.
J jamie from thriceallamerican December 20, 2007
grubedoo @15:
Ha! COTW candidate right there!
E Erik Hanberg December 20, 2007
David K, see the Google map on the top right of this page …
D Dome Topper December 20, 2007
Before anyone thinks of a big downtown commercial project we had better be concerned about taking care of Russell’s needs. They have long outgrown their building and could be interested in the type of iconic 40-50 story office building that could be built on that site. Without Russell, most of the downtown core dies.
C Christian December 20, 2007
There is so much skepticism on this blog site when ever some proposed “change” is brewing, even the most exciting news gets a little shot of negativity.
I understand we’re Tacomans… we’ve all been stood up before the big dance too many times and it’s made us cautious and jaded.
But I can’t help but feel positive about this potential development. Erivan Haub is the closest thing we have to a “Paul Allen-like” figure (meaning he wants to spend money in the same place he lives), and he continues to show interest in building up the area that needs it the most. Of course it has to pencil for him. He’s not a billionaire by mistake (albeit he did inherit his initial wealth – but he’s still a badass business man who’s been very successful throughout his career). The point is, he wants to build here and we need to do what ever we can within our scope to allow him to do so!
Parking? Dig a hole. Every other major city that’s developing anything HUGE, starts by digging down as far as they can in order to accommodate for multi-level parking.
Is there something special about our downtown hillside that won’t allow for underground parking?
T tct December 20, 2007
What about the post office itself on A street?
S snoopy December 20, 2007
I could see Mr. Haub building another office building in the near future.
Hopefully the parking requirement is eliminated before any such building is permitted. Though, without parking, it is likely the building will provide ample parking spaces in order to meet market demand.
E Erik B. December 20, 2007
Hopefully the parking requirement is eliminated before any such building is permitted. Though, without parking, it is likely the building will provide ample parking spaces in order to meet market demand.
Ditto. With the new council, hopefully, the city can look at antiquated barriers to development downtown. From street vending to parking, the city code in many ways is a lock down territorial suburban model. As an example, the city makes it impossible to sell a hot dog in Tollefson Plaza.
E Erik B. December 20, 2007
As an example, the city makes it impossible to sell a hot dog in Tollefson Plaza.
Or nearly so.
D drizell December 20, 2007
“Parking? Dig a hole. Every other major city that’s developing anything HUGE, starts by digging down as far as they can in order to accommodate for multi-level parking.
Is there something special about our downtown hillside that won’t allow for underground parking?”
My little study
“/1681/a-letter-about-parking-by-andre-stone”
of the 1/2 acre lot next to the Luzon Building determined that if you were to build a 40-story building, you would need a minimum of 14 levels of parking covering the entire lot. The deepest below-grade parking garage I’ve ever been in was about 8 stories deep. The bottom of such a 14-story underground parking garage, under current City of Tacoma regulations, would be below sea level and almost certainly would be under the water table, causing a real engineering challenge. Furthermore, the excessive required parking could easily top 50% of the project’s entire budget. This is absurd. This is why developers do not build tall buildings in downtown Tacoma.
R rich December 20, 2007
lets say it all comes back to the parking requirement………they really need to get rid of that thing…….seems like it is counterproductive…..
M Mofo from the Hood December 20, 2007
Does parking for a 40-story building need to be close or within the footprint of the building? If not then that changes the problem to a matter of transporting car owners to the building zone. For example, timed regular shuttles or even skybridges or level escalades of the type used at Sea-Tac Airport. The last example I envision as part of an enclosed mall-type complex.
Regarding underground parking, I suppose that some areas of downtown would allow a shallow depth expansive lateral system. So again, the problem could be changed to a matter of transporting car owners to the building zone.
M Mofo from the Hood December 20, 2007
Addendum to 27:
Shuttling people to the buiding zone is a system that is used downtown right now—-The Link Rail from the Puyallup Avenue Garage to downtown.
C Crenshaw Sepulveda December 20, 2007
If we keep building as if cars were in our future then cars will be in our future even if gasoline is fifteen bucks a gallon. We have to start building as if cars were not in our future. I’m thinking that the Tacoma Dome Station parking structure could be expanded and the Link could ferry more people downtown. I’ve often wondered where the people will park if the Winthrop ever becomes some fancy hotel. A good many people staying in fancy hotels have cars to park. I’m with the rest of the folk that think parking should not be part of Tacoma’s future and that the current parking be converted to office, retail, entertainment, or residential. We don’t need parking, we need transportation systems. Transportation systems are anything that get a person efficiently from point A to point B. Bus, cab, trolley, bicycle, walking, rickshaw, anything but privately owned vehicles.
B Brotha E December 20, 2007
Drizell@27
You nailed it exactly. I was just about to say it. It’s the water table. Does anyone not remember how much of a nightmare they had with building the convention center? And it’s located on a slope. imagine what it would be like digging down 10 floors at sea level. The city’s storm system can’t even keep the basements dry in the rest of the city. Well then again it could always be turned into that new aquarium we always wanted.
R rich December 20, 2007
oh,come on, you could get a good 5-6 floors of underground parking in that spot before getting to sea level…..if not that…then 3-4 ……but the further up the hill you go the more underground floors you gain…….we really need to get beyond the whole parking requirement and let the market decide……it seems to work for all the other cities….I always park in the same underground parking lot in dt seattle……never a problem……..this whole on street parking is for small towns….not cities….and especially not the core of a downtown….
M Mofo from the Hood December 20, 2007
C.S. @29:
In response to your general drift about backing away from reliance on cars, I would agree with that. Even in a broader sense I would suggest that people in general should think about how much we all rely on all types of technology.
But the thing with cars is I don’t see personal transportation as a bad thing. That is unless the general population is restricted from car ownership. If only the rich or government officials could own the best technology like cars, then I would fear the development of specific tyrannies that would attempt to restrict further freedoms from the general population.
Personal transportation is both a symbol and tangible evidence of freedom of movement.
The obsession with cars I understand. The obsession with parking I don’t understand.
P penelope December 21, 2007
Where does the assumption come from that the Downtown Merchants are responsible for Council backing way from the idea of removing parking requirements? I don’t seem to remember hearing any voice of that tone from Downtown Merchants. If that conversation has been had, I would guess someone with out the interest in seeing the BIG picture, has made a statement based on disagreement with inf. that Erik B. has been pushing for the last year.
Removing parking requirements is not in itself a bad idea, Portland proved that by letting a Large hotel build with out providing parking. Portland also has a great transportation “SYSTEM”. We do not yet. our City officials are still looking at parking (meters) as a revenue generator not an inventory management system. Removing or “adjusting” parking requirements would remove some barriers to developing DT, but it is not the only piece of the puzzle. Getting rid of “surface” parking, and sharing garages for better use of space, making city employees park in garages instead of the streets, taking an inventory of what parking is available, making all parking times consistent with proper signage and enforcement, creative ways to incent employers to get their employees off the streets, having alternate transpotation choices, are all part of the big picture. Please do not lump the Downtown Merchants into the assumptive responsibility for holding back council. They do that very well on their own. Also, I don’t think that merchants that think realistically have the pompous attitude you speak of in regards to having everything people need. We have many needs that could be filled in the DT, and an anchor or two would not be a bad thing to a merchant with a sense of reality. Bring on a large office building and DO put some larger retail in it. We need the density. Also, forget about parking requirements so that people will fill up the streets and we will finally have something to complain about instead of wining about having to walk a block!
C Christian December 21, 2007
I believe it may take another 20 years, but this is going to work. Simpson cleaned up the air; Seattle is outrageously expensive and congested. So is Bellevue. Federal Way and Auburn have nothing going for them. No waterfront, no view, no history. Tacoma will be the place. Look for Haub Palisades (or whatever) to be the urban center of the future, right in the heart of Tacoma. Not at the Dome; not in old town, not in the theater district, not on sixth avenue, not in Proctor, not at the Mall. Haub will ultimately buy the post office building, get 12th vacated, and everything between 13th and 11th, from Pacific to A street will be the new city shopping, parking, and office center. There will be 25 stories of office on top of the shopping center and eight stories of underground parking.
What a vision. Buy your tickets now.
R rich December 21, 2007
I like the way you think……….anyone ever wonder if Haub has plans for the current parking garage/lot that Columbia Bank building uses? Perfect location for many exciting things…..
E Erik S December 21, 2007
Sounds nice, Christian. I’m not patient enough to wait 20 years for many things, but in this case the ride should interesting enough itself.
Most folks here on E133 seem to agree that the parking requirement is a huge problem or at the very least unnecessary. A friend of mine recent spoke to a member of the council and this member seemed genuinely concerned about the shortage of parking downtown. Not a potential future shortage, but a current problem. I was shocked to hear this. Is there something going on 9-5, M-F that I am missing?
Perversely, I’m starting to wonder if the council members have too much history in Tacoma. Perhaps their memories of tumbleweeds blowing down Pacific in the ’80s and ’90s make the current level of activity seem out of control. How else could their beliefs in this matter be explained?
Seriously: Let developers build only the parking that they feel is necessary. If downtown gets busy enough that parking becomes a real problem, there are plenty of empty lots and vacant buildings to build new garages. Don’t put the cart before the horse.
R rich December 21, 2007
What it is, is the council/merchants feel like we are still a small town and people should be able to park right next to their destination…..WRONG!!!!! People we are trying to be a city here……this does not work in the heart of a city….you have underground garages and you may have to walk 2-3 blocks to your destination…most people can probably use the exercise anyways…….this is the plague of Tacoma….and yes, the council is stuck in the past………..<—Rich blowing his top…AGAIN……
anyways, so does the parking lot with the rental car place belong too the post office too? or is this a seperate issue??
R rich December 21, 2007
the day we get a new mayor, and a change in coucil will be the day that Tacoma get’s the two ton monkey off our back……
R rich December 21, 2007
hey, anyone think that Haub is gathering the location to build on for the new Russell building….???? now that’s the ticket……..intermixed with retail in the bottom floors, of course…….
P penelope December 24, 2007
Rich, you are right there are still some merchants that desire parking for their tenants right in front of their store. This IS unrealistic. We want people to get out of their cars and walk a block experiencing a number of stops along the way.
R rich December 24, 2007
wow….after the russell article….maybe these merchants will realize how everything effects everything….and the parking issue is actually pretty big……and the small town views need to go, they don’t belong in the core of what is suppose to be one of the big cities in the region……hell, Federal Way is acting more grown up than tacoma….
E Erik Hanberg December 24, 2007
Small independent merchants don’t belong in the core? Man, we have different ideas of what cities should like. All my favorites from the big to the small have cool shops in their downtown—in addition to chain retail.
We can have both. We should have both.
R rich December 24, 2007
I never said the merchants don’t belong, I said the small town views…..example being their customers ability to park right in front of their store…….that doesn’t belong in the core…..